House V Bell Case Study

House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case, which originated out of a Tennessee trial court murder conviction and death sentence (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008). The case started with the murder of Carolyn Muncey late on the night of July 14, 1985, or in the early morning hours of July 15, 1985. Muncey disappeared from her home, and was found dead the next day, with her body having been dumped down an embankment and covered with brush and limbs. The defendant, Paul Gregory House, was seen in the area of the body dump site, on July 15, 1985, carrying a black rag, and reportedly coming up the embankment, in the area where Muncey’s body was later located (House v. Bell, 2006). Evidence collected from the body of

Bell, 2006). The serologist from the FBI laboratory testified that the semen, found on Muncey’s clothing, was consistent with having come from House, in that it was produced by a person with type A blood, and was a secretor. It was also pointed out that both Carolyn Muncey, and her husband, William Hubert Muncey, Jr. had the same blood type as House, but that test had been conducted to see if either of the Munceys’ were secretors. For its part, the defense called several witnesses to testify that House could not have been responsible for the crime, and that Mr. Muncey was an alcoholic, who was abusive to his wife, and that she was afraid of her husband, and wanted to leave him (House v. Bell, 2006). In his closing arguments, the prosecutor informed the jury that Carolyn Muncey had been murdered by House, while he was attempting kidnap and rape her, even though there was no direct testimony to that effect. House was convicted of Capital Murder, and at the subsequent penalty hearing, the jury recommended the death penalty, based on the inclusion of the alleged rape and kidnapping accusatory statements. The judge, in the case, sentenced House to death. The conviction and sentence were subsequently appealed to the Tennessee

The Supreme Court used this evidence, and the fact that the pants and the blood had been transported to the crime lab in the same box, and that a vial and a quarter of autopsy blood were missing, to rule that, if known by the jury, could have created reasonable doubt (House V. Bell, 2006). This, along with the evidence, presented by House, that Mr. Muncey had a history of spousal abuse against Mrs. Muncey, and the fact that he had fabricated an alibi to cover his whereabouts for the time of the murder, could have created a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, had it been presented at trial (House v. Bell, 2006). It was with these facts in mind that the Supreme Court reached a final ruling in this case. The Court’s final ruling was that while House had not presented sufficient evidence to exonerate himself completely, he did present enough evidence to create the question of his actual guilt, and warranted a new trial (House v. Bell, 2006). All of these holdings, and the new evidence presented by House caused the United States Supreme Court to reverse the conviction of House, and to remand the case back to the state court for further